Without the detailed media coverage we'd have known nothing about Cummings; that's true, but I wonder if we're dismissing the advantages of a free press too quickly?
I agree that the first priority is sorting out the mess that has been created by those in charge ignoring repeated warnings about the pandemic. We are now officially the worst-served country in the world, going by deaths per million. Which seems odd, given we're one of the most advanced and the fifth major economy.
The point about a free press, however, is that it's a double-edged sword; it will do a lot of things we dislike and, by use of hints and innuendo, it will often convey misleading impressions on purpose.
But in a notionally free society, it will also uncover behaviours on the part of those making policy which seem to suggest those same people don't believe the rules should apply to them.
For example, it seems
Cummings is not above lying, which could have serious consequences for all of us, if he's almost running the country.
So the decision we're all left with is whether we are happy to have the country effectively run by a known liar, by someone who believes the rules don't apply to him, or whether we'd be better off without a free press and proceeding happily towards the grave, knowing nothing about who was making the major decisions on which all our lives depend.
Personally, I'm not.
